House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Oct 1990

Mrs. Rosie Barnes (Greenwich) : I welcome the proposals for testing seven-year-olds, so long as they are carried out sensitively and constructively and are never used to brand such young children as failures. However, the purpose of the tests is to identify specific needs--both strengths and learning difficulties. Unless we can be reassured that adequate resources will be made available to meet those identified needs, the tests will not be worth while. At the moment many children who have been identified as having special needs--I include children with strengths as well as those with difficulties--have to wait far too long for far too little.

Mr. MacGregor : The whole point of testing at seven is to summarise for parents and teachers the stage that a child has reached at the end of its time at an infant school. It will enable teachers to assess weaknesses and the areas in which further work needs to be done with that child. Children will be graded at different levels. It is a process of, among many other things, identifying special needs.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury) : I welcome the simplified tests, but does my right hon. Friend think that they will have an effect on the way in which the national curriculum is taught at primary stage in schools? Does he agree that at present the national curriculum gives children a broad level of information instead of concentrating on basic skills? Will not these changes inevitably mean, therefore, changes to the way in which the curriculum is introduced?

Mr. MacGregor : The national curriculum is all about obtaining a broader range of knowledge and skills from the age of five to 16. I believe strongly that that is necessary if we are to have an education system for all our children relevant for the 1990s and beyond. A broad range of skills and the understanding and knowledge of practical application are all important. My announcement about concentrating the external tests on the basics--reading, writing, arithmetic and basic scientific skills--means that the tests will deal with matters about which parents are most concerned.

Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar) : The Secretary of State spoke of testing as a method of improving standards. It is teaching which improves standards, not testing. The time spent in testing is time taken from teaching. I do not believe that there is a school in the country where children are not regularly tested so that the

Column 1402

teacher knows how well they are absorbing what is being taught. There is a case for trying to standardise tests, particularly in mathematics, but does the Secretary of State agree that when devising the tests it must be remembered that a child who is allowed to play with balancing apparatus at an early stage will understand quadratic equations easily later on, but may not do well in formal arithmetic tests, which will be no prediction of future standards or ability? Does the Secretary of State agree that the tests must be--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but will she ask her question because there is an important debate after this?

Ms. Gordon : Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the tests take into account cultural differences, class differences and ethnic minority differences so that the results will not be unfair? Does he agree that the external aspect of testing can be very damaging to children aged seven? It can destroy the self-image of many children who are not able to succeed. The tests must be devised so that children can succeed, because success lays the pathway to future improvement in education.

Mr. MacGregor : It is important to have assessment and testing at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 as well as at 16. It is important so that teachers can assess the progress of the child, so that parents can know what is going on and so that, nationally, we all know the progress that is being made. Therefore, I make no apology for introducing tests and assessments at seven, 11 and 14. There will be a wide range of ways in which the assessment is made. The reaction from the majority of the teaching profession to the national curriculum and concept of assessment has been very favourable. We are introducing a systematic means of checking what children have learnt, checking the results and assessing their progress.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I must have regard to the important Public Accounts Committee debate that will take place immediately after this statement. I understand the importance of this subject and I know that many hon. Members wish to participate. If they are brief, I hope to be able to fit them all in, but I shall have to stop questions to the Secretary of State at 5.10 pm. Therefore, I ask for brief questions now.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : I welcome the clear guidelines for testing at seven set out by my right hon. Friend. I wonder whether Members of Parliament would achieve good scores if they were allowed to take the test. I should like to ask two clear questions--

Mr. Speaker : Order. How about asking one question? That will give other hon. Members a chance.

Mr. Greenway : Will the test include the spelling of words learnt phonically by children? That will be important. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if teachers are to be asked to spend one and a half weeks testing, it will have serious implications for staff time? They will need help and someone to take the class while they are doing the testing. What will be done?

Mr. MacGregor : Yes, spelling is included. It is one of the eight attainment targets outside reading. On my hon.

Column 1403

Friend's second point, testing will be one and a half weeks carried out over three weeks. We believe that that is manageable.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I and my colleagues also welcome the Secretary of State's statement. We welcome the reduced scope of the tests which will make them more manageable for children and reduce the heavy load on teachers. I see that the assessments will be introduced in 1991. Will the tests come into operation in Northern Ireland in 1991?

The Secretary of State is referring to national assessments and one wonders sometimes to what nation he is referring. Statements of this nature should be made on a United Kingdom basis, not just an England and Wales basis. The Parliament of England and Wales went out of existence nearly 300 years ago.

Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am responsible for education in England. I shall check up on the points he has raised and ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gets in touch with the hon. Gentleman about it.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his positive statement with its emphasis on diagnostic testing of pupils and improving quality and standards contrasts with the destructive and negative attitude of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)? It is the same negative attitude that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues exhibited a few months ago when they repeated the allegation--now proved to be untrue --in the National Union of Teachers' advertisements about the quality of our schools which did a great deal to damage morale among teachers.

Mr. MacGregor : I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Can the Secretary of State say what consideration, allowances or weighting will be given to children of seven who take the test but whose first language is not English and to teachers whose first language is English?

On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), unless these matters are dealt with in an extremely sensitive way, there is a danger that both children and parents will have their self- esteem damaged. I suspect that some of this may be connected with the recent statement to allow first and primary schools to opt out. If children and their parents become greatly dissatisfied, there will be pressure to opt out of the maintained system.

Mr. MacGregor : This has nothing to do with my recent announcement about extending the option of grant-maintained status to all primary schools. That stands supremely on its own merits. On assessment, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that the approach of the national curriculum is that children reach different levels of attainment in different age groups. Some children will reach a certain level at a different time from others. Next summer, in the assessments at seven, there will be three levels-- first, second and third. The point is to show parents and teachers what level a child has reached in a certain subject. It may vary from subject to subject. It will show what needs to be done to help the child move to the next stage. It is a means by which a child can assess its own progress.

Column 1404

Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : Will my right hon. Friend give me an absolute assurance that the levels of attainment in the tests will equal or surpass those achieved currently in the best systems on the continent? In other words, can he assure me that this will not prove to be another example of the insular complacency that has afflicted our system? If he can give me that assurance, will he explain how it will be achieved, given that on the continent there is a far more advanced and extensive system of nursery education? At the end of the road, whether it is mathematics or English, we want A-levels. Although we have confidence in the Secretary of State, we do not have confidence in the education industry. That is why vice-chancellors are saying that they will need a fourth year at university for mathematics and it is why A-level English is being diluted, despite my right hon. Friend's assurance to the contrary.

Mr. MacGregor : It is my intention to ensure that we have rigour in the tests. Although it is a different approach from some that take place in other countries, I am determined that we should achieve that rigour. On nursery education, my hon. Friend will know that we start full-time compulsory schooling at an earlier age than most countries in the European Community. That must be taken into account.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : About five minutes ago the Secretary of State said that over the past 18 months he has been testing the tests. Will he also accept that he has been testing the practicality of the dafter ideas of his predecessor, now the chairman of the Conservative party, whose tests and practicality have been found severely wanting? Will he accept that the longer his predecessor stays as Conservative party chairman, the happier we will be, since he cannot do any damage to the nation's children or to us?

Mr. MacGregor : That is nonsense. My right hon. Friend had the good sense to ensure that we ran pilots before setting up a national testing arrangement. We did two years of evaluation, from which we learned much. It is to my right hon. Friend's credit that he set up a system under which we now have the most careful preparation for radical education reforms that I can recall. The hon. Gentleman misses the point of testing tests and evaluation in a small number of primary schools before we go national.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling) : Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the two great tests that his statement has passed? First, it will give parents an answer to the objective question "How is my child doing in school?" and, secondly, he has clearly listened and responded to the hard- working and professional teachers, who have given him and his colleagues advice on how to handle this matter. He has shown that he has heard them and has been able to agree with their professional judgment.

Mr. MacGregor : I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : Does the Minister agree that testing is educationally sound if it establishes a child's problems and allows remedial action to be taken? Testing can be bad if it is done simply to fill files and, in many cases, to act as PR material for a school

Column 1405

or school authority. Will the Minister insist and be emphatic that these tests will not be allowed to be used as PR exercises by a school or education authority?

Mr. MacGregor : I agree that one of the points of assessment at seven is to enable evaluation of the child, his progress and the areas that must be tackled because he is showing weakness in them. Equally, it is perfectly reasonable and right--indeed, I would encourage it--for schools to state, if they wish to do so, and we are not making it compulsory next year, what they are achieving in terms of assessment. Two matters are important in helping to raise standards : first, greater choice, which we are achieving under several of our other reforms and, secondly, comparative performance and encouraging schools that perhaps are not doing as well as others to follow schools that are. That is achieved by showing what is going on in the school.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the children who undertook the pilot tests enjoyed them and found them useful? How does he propose to adapt the testing procedures to schools which deal with children who have special learning difficulties but which are also applying the national curriculum to their work?

Mr. MacGregor : My hon. Friend's second point is obviously for experts on the subject and I look to SEAC and the agencies it uses to assist with that. It was clear that teachers and pupils found the individual tests stimulating. It was important that they were rigorous, but they found them stimulating. The problem was that there were too many tests.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : As I have been a weekly columnist for the New Scientist for 23 years, will the Secretary of State accept that among the scientific community there is sceptical curiosity about testing at seven for basic scientific skills? If John or Jane aged seven seem to fall down on the testing of basic skills in science, what happens? Does anybody try to help them? Do we have the resources to try to help them or is there a danger of simply breaking their hearts and doing nothing about it?

Mr. MacGregor : The purpose of testing is the exploration of science and scientific concepts at a level appropriate for seven-year-olds. I have seen some very good work being done in schools. Criticism has been made that we have not had enough scientific teaching at the appropriate level in our primary schools, just as we have not had enough technology teaching in the past. That is a valid criticism. We are making great improvements and the scientific community welcomes the fact that such heavy emphasis is placed on science in the curriculum.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : I welcome the concentration in my right hon. Friend's announcement on the three Rs, which is precisely the subject of parental concern at present. Will he ensure that the results of testing are issued in a manner that parents can understand by cutting out the education jargon that afflicts so much of these reports? We should bear it in mind that the very parents who will be reading the reports are those who had trouble with the three Rs in the first place.

Column 1406

Mr. MacGregor : By no means always, but I agree with the main point that my hon. Friend is making. One of the dangers of the education world is that it is riddled with technical and educational jargon. It is extremely important that reports to parents are written in clear language and in a way to which parents can respond. I share my hon. Friend's concern and will try to ensure that happens.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Will these arrangements apply to the private sector, or will Tory Members' children be exempt from the provisions of testing, as they are exempt from the provisions of the national curriculum? How will he prevent the seven-year-old examinations being turned into a seven-plus procedure, with all the accompanying difficulties for the children involved? Would not it be better, rather than lavishing millions of pounds on this system, to lavish millions of pounds on more teachers to get smaller classes, because that is the only way that we shall achieve better standards?

Mr. MacGregor : Parliament decided, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that independent schools should not be brought within the national curriculum. There is pretty rigorous testing in many independent schools at various ages. As I have made clear many times, I hope that more and more will use the national curriculum.

Mr. Cryer : They do not have to.

Mr. MacGregor : No. Under the legislation they do not have to do so, but I believe that more will wish to participate fully in the national curriculum and I will welcome that.

Mr. James Paice (Cambridgeshire, South-East) : May I welcome my right hon. Friend's concentration on the three Rs but particularly concentrate on reading? Will he assure me that the test will be sufficiently diagnostic that it will detect children suffering from dyslexia so that they are not branded as backward in reading and writing? It is of particular importance because I am afraid that a number of teachers do not accept that such a condition exists.

Mr. MacGregor : I do not think that that will follow entirely from the assessment at seven, but the assessment of reading will detect children who continue to have reading difficulties, and it will do so on an externally assessed basis. In other words, the tests will be external. That will enable the teachers to identify children who have reading difficulties, which obviously they will be able to do in many other ways.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who has scored a great victory for common sense in his proposals. Many of us will see it as a victory over that part of the education establishment that seemed determined to undermine the Education Reform Act 1988. May we hope that in future announcements on tests he will follow the same policy as he has in today's statement? Will he consider the amounts that we pay those in the education service who advise, write and talk but do not teach, and concentrate more effort in the classroom, where the money is needed?

Mr. MacGregor : I have been evaluating carefully and discussing testing with many people. I have been evaluating the reaction of teachers who have been conscientiously doing the pilots. I have been discussing for

Column 1407

some time with my official advisory body, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, and others what lessons we had learnt from the pilots and what decisions I should take. I believe that the decisions that I have taken, based on the advice of the School Examinations and Assessment Council, which is responsible for carrying this through, are absolutely right for the national curriculum. They will ensure that the national curriculum is carried through as we wish. They concentrate on the basics, which is important at the age of seven, and, for the first time, introduce across the country the concept of external tests. That is why I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the remarks that he made about the decisions that I have taken this afternoon.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) : As a former teacher, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. It is good news that we are to make progress on testing in 1991. If we are to have a proper compulsory national system of testing of children, with a view to helping those in difficulties and raising overall standards, why cannot we have a proper compulsory national system of testing teachers, with the same objectives?

Mr. MacGregor : I have made it clear that I believe that teacher appraisal is desirable. I am trying to put in place a national framework for teacher appraisal. I do not think that it is right at the moment to move to statutory, compulsory, obligatory appraisal systems in every school, for the simple reason that the key priority at the moment is to get the national curriculum in place and to make those reforms work. I have been conscious of the hard work that many schools are doing in that respect. I do not want to overload the system at a time when we must make the national curriculum work. Many schools have been carrying out appraisals, and I have encouraged that.

Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North) : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will reject the calls of those who wish individual tests for children to be made so variable, for a variety of reasons, that children's weaknesses may not be exposed or may be excused? Unless children have objective targets at which to aim, whatever their backgrounds may be, we will be selling them short. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to parents and teachers that these tests are only one way of looking at a school, that many other components make a good school and that tests should be seen in the context of whatever else is done in a school? Teachers must recognise that tests are important, but parents must also recognise that there are other components on which to make a judgment.

Mr. MacGregor : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The whole point of introducing these external tests is to get the right balance between teacher assessment and external tests. The external tests bring in rigour and uniformity and give parents a much greater guarantee about the progress being made on the basics. It is important to strike the right balance, which is what I think we are doing. I agree with my hon. Friend that many aspects in a school are relevant to a school's performance, as well as what we have been talking about this afternoon.

Column 1408

Public Accounts

5.11 pm

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne) : I beg to move,

That this House takes note of the 34th to 41st Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1988-89, of the 1st to 32nd Reports of Session 1989-90, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of finance and Personnel Memoranda on those Reports (Cm. 963, 964, 1057, 1101, 1150, 1235 and 1247) with particular reference to the following Reports :

1988-89

Thirty-sixth, Further matters relating to Northern Ireland ; 1989-90

First, Financial problems at universities ;

Sixth, Sale of rover Group to British Aerospace plc ;

Thirteenth, Ministry of Defence : Further examination of the Sale of Royal Ordnance plc ;

Sixteenth, Financial Management in the National Health Service ; Thirty- first, Quality control of road and bridge construction. The last public accounts debate was a little less than a year ago. We are moving to a tradition of holding over the debate for the overspill of the Session or shortly afterwards. The last motion referred to 48 reports ; this time there are 40 reports and eight Government replies. We have chosen a few reports to highlight to which special attention should be drawn, although obviously many others will be mentioned during the debate.

My first task is to thank members of the hard-working Public Accounts Committee. Two Members no longer serve on the Committee. The first is Ian Gow, whose absence we greatly deplore. He carried out incisive questioning and was a valuable member of the Committee. All members of the Committee regret the occurrence that led to his departure from the Committee and the absence of his wise counsel during our investigations.

The other Member who is absent from the Committee is my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Like so many others, he has been moved to the Opposition Front Bench. A large number of Opposition Members on our Committee have moved to the Opposition Front Bench--my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). It looks as though the Public Accounts Committee is fulfilling, on the Opposition Benches, the role that the Government Whips Office fulfils in recruiting to the Government Front Beench. This is a compliment and we value it, but we face some difficulties in finding replacements.

I welcome the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He is always welcome. The roles of the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee have several similarities. We are both anxious to get value for money and to ensure that taxpayers' money is used properly. We are grateful to the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who left the Committee in the last reshuffle.

The most important aspect of the Committee's work is unanimity. During the time I have had the privilege of being Chairman, there have been well over 300 reports, and every one has been unanimous. It is an enormous advantage to have unanimity. The Government have to take note of our reports, because hon. Members have

Column 1409

come to identical conclusions. Our reports are not mushy. Some Committees can produce unanimous reports because they sink their differences in the ambiguity of wording. Members of the Public Accounts Committee are outspoken at the beginning of our discussions and at the end.

Unanimity is crucial. It comes from our respect for the taxpayer. We do not produce partisan views when we question witnesses and discuss reports. We have the enormous advantage that we do not look at policy. We take policy for granted, however much personally we may object to it. Policy is laid down. We want its economic, efficient and effective implementation. I have been pleased to see the large amount of work that my colleagues put into investigations. That was not always so. I am grateful for the investigations by my colleagues into certain matters, rather surprising the National Audit Office and me with their thoroughness.

The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee are very much a partnership these days. The Committee depends on investigations by the National Audit Office, based as they are on detailed investigation of Government papers and accounts. We build on them with evidence from accounting officers and then produce reports for the House. Treasury minutes respond to our reports. We welcome the new form of Treasury minute, whereby each of our recommendations is followed by a response from a Government Department via the Treasury. Under the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General has complete discretion in the investigations that he undertakes. There is discussion with the Committee and our views are inserted in reports. We hear well in advance of matters that will be investigated.

I thank the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff. The office has undoubtedly improved enormously since the days of the Exchequer and Audit Department. Previously, there were civil servants trying to be auditors ; now, there are proper auditors. In fact, one of our problems is that the auditors have become so good that the City and other private enterprises want to take many of them. Because of the different rates of pay, a number of people leave the National Audit Office. However, because of interest in the job, its importance and the initiative that staff are allowed, we are able to retain people despite the rather lower levels of pay. We are grateful to them for all they do. We have meetings at the National Audit Office to see how they are progressing. The Public Accounts Committee is always a critical Committee, so we cannot be filled with uncritical admiration for them. Nevertheless, we are filled with admiration for the way in which they carry out improvements.

The Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, Bill Jack, and his staff, do a valuable job. I have chosen the Northern Ireland report as the first one to mention. I do not think that we have given it enough attention in our Committee debates. I am glad to see some Northern Ireland Members here, and I hope that they will comment in due course. The CAG for Northern Ireland makes his reports separately from the appropriation accounts, but there are some reports from the

Column 1410

appropriation accounts. We do not have to wait for an annual publication, as reports are now published twice a year.

We also thank Treasury Officer of Accounts, John Beastall, and his Northern Ireland counterpart, John Dowdall, for their attendance at our sessions, and the accounting officers who come to give evidence. We are very much aware of the amount of time that they give in coming before us to give evidence. We know that they take their responsibilities in this seriously and that reputations can be made and --I hope rarely--unmade as a result of their failures or--which is far more common--their successes in dealing with public money. The 36th report of 1988-89 is entitled "Further matters relating to Northern Ireland". Typically, we have about two investigative sessions a year and look at six or seven matters concerning Northern Ireland. I will concentrate on one matter, but to bring it into perspective, I will mention some of the matters that we have considered previously.

The most important was the De Lorean investigation some years ago. It led to our appreciation of the work done by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General. That report was fully up to the standard of anything that we have produced and led to some important matters. The Committee investigated the way in which the money was disposed of, which led to other interesting aspects.

We did not take evidence from either of the Ministers involved. Under the Labour Administration, one Minister started the whole process, and under the Conservative Administration, the other Minister gave substantial sums. The question was whether we should have them before us. I thought that it would be wrong to do so, and I still think that.

Under normal circumstances, we have the enormous advantage of looking at the issue, although we do not, of course, disqualify ourselves from hearing evidence from Ministers in future. However, when a Minister comes before us, personalities will play their part. Even more importantly, the Minister who started the process would be able to claim that it had not been continued in the way that he would have wished and the Minister who was involved at a later stage would say, "If only I had been there at the beginning, I would have handled it differently." We must avoid such a situation.

The person who always comes before us is the accounting officer of the day. He or she may be new to the post, but he or she holds the responsibility for the Department in the same way that the Financial Secretary will be responsible for his reply. Although he is fairly new to his position, I am sure that his reply will be interesting and we look forward to it. Our system provides the continuity of responsibility without which we could not sensibly operate. We have responsibility not for the people who come and go, but for the Department itself, so we are able to carry out proper investigations.

The De Lorean report led to various other matters, one of which was the role of the nominee directors. We found that there were nominee directors at a time when money was being passed over from the United States. We asked the Treasury what the role of a nominee director was and we had to wait an inordinate time for the answer. I cannot recall the exact time, but I know that it was six months or longer before we found out the answer.

Once one has raised such questions, one starts to wonder what the nominee directors are doing. There are a

Column 1411

number of them in various industries. The Government appoint them and a nominee directorship is regarded as a bit of a perk in some quarters. One has to have someone quite good in the job, but one does not think of them as having the responsibility to inform the Government when things are going wrong, as they may often do. The rather light-hearted approach became a far more serious investigation and led to a further report.

A couple of years ago, we investigated road accident compensation. We found that pavements were being dug up--or something was happening--and that people were tripping over. Most of us have had a constituent who has made a claim after tripping up, but I can recall only a handful of such cases. Yet we found that in Northern Ireland there were streets in which there was a claim in almost every house. The following year, we asked how it was going, and we found that matters were worse.

Not so long ago, such matters were put out to private insurers. They thought that they could do a better job themselves, but they found that they were spending far more money on the claims. In one sense, it was not their fault, because the courts decided the amount of compensation. However, it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland to ensure that the roads and pavements are kept up reasonably so that claims do not arise. We know about the problems in Northern Ireland as our colleagues tell us about them. We are also aware of them from the unfortunate statements that come all too frequently.

We understand that there are particular difficulties, but people in Northern Ireland, rightly, want the maintenance of the same standards that we expect in the rest of the United Kingdom. We do not make concessions on that, and it would be wrong to do so. I am sure that the Northern Ireland people feel the same as we do.

I want to refer again to the 36th report from 1988-89. In 1973, it was decided to promote a nursery to grow shrubs and plants for housing estates. That was a sensible proposition, as every housing estate needs plants and shrubs, and flowers would be needed for events such as lord mayors' functions. That happens in many local authorities in Great Britain.

It was decided that, instead of buying plants from outside, the nursery would grow them. The stock had to be valued at the end of each year and it was thought that as plants grow, they tend to be worth rather more at the end of each year than they are at the beginning. An average valuation of a 10 per cent. increase was put on each plant and shrub.

In March 1982, local government queries were raised and it was pointed out that plants vary. Some plants do not grow well, whereas others grow considerably and become far more valuable. A range of increase for each plant and shrub from about 10 per cent. to 40 per cent. was settled. Those that had done well would have an increase of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. and those that had not done as well would have an increase of only 10 per cent.

Each year, the value of the small stock grew until it reached £570, 000 in 1985. I am surprised that it did not happen earlier, but at that stage, several people began to find that a surprising figure. The nursery seemed to be a real profit centre. If it was doing so well, why did it not abandon the rigorous control of discretionary purchases and spend a little more on armchairs, desks or whatever? It was then decided that there should be an independent valuation, because £570,000 seemed such a large amount.

Column 1412

An independent valuer was called in and valued the £570,000 of stock at £45,000. The problem was that people thought that the nursery had done well, but it had not.

The report says that the local government auditor was informed about the need for a more realistic stock valuation system. That was in place until the production of the figure of £570,000.

In question 4196 I asked :

"As a result of this over-assessment of the value of the stock what decisions were made which should not have been made? Was any expenditure incurred, for example, because they thought they were doing so well in making substantial sums of money?"

Obviously, that must affect the way in which the operation was carried out.

In the end, because of the difficulty of separating the fresh purchases from the old, it was decided to abandon the scheme. Sadly, people were dismissed. If it had been properly managed, it might well have been cost- effective.

In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report, we say :

"It is clear that if at any time the Division directly responsible for the nursery had taken stock, or if the Finance Division had properly verified the figure for stock, the disparity between book and actual values would have immediately become apparent. We asked therefore why both Divisions failed to carry out these essential procedures and the Department replied that neither Division had sufficient knowledge of what was involved and that it could neither excuse nor justify these failures."

In paragraph 5 we say :

"We are astonished".

That is a word that I cannot ever recall using. The Public Accounts Committee's language is always restrained. We have a schedule of adjectives which has never gone as far as that. We understate. We are not putting people in the dock in order to sentence them to some horrible end ; we are trying to improve the administration. That is crucial. Our task is to hear the evidence, not to indulge in attacking witnesses as they come before us.

I am reminded very much of the congressional system of inquiry, which many of us will have seen, where the chairman bangs his gavel and says that he has heard enough. It is easy to intimidate witnesses. That is not what we try to do. We try to discover the facts and to improve the administration. Nevertheless, in this case we had to say :

"We are astonished by these admissions and the confirmation that those responsible failed over a period of many years to carry out their fundamental duties."

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : The first parliamentary question that I tabled on my election here was on that very matter and I have a growing--if I may use that word--interest in it. The reality is that the dogs in the streets of Northern Ireland, even those visiting some of the trees, knew that something was wrong. That was drawn to the attention of Ministers here and the Housing Executive board, yet the matter was not finally dealt with until it was considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and that aspect of the matter still disturbs me.

Next Section

Home Page